From: Stuart, Ian (Ian.Stuart@woolpert.com)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 09:35:19 MST
I don't particularly like where this thought leads, although I can't
argue with the logic of it.
Specifically, I wonder why, if all intelligences will move toward the
same rational fitness peak, that the future needs more than one such
entity except possibly for redundancy. Does this mean that the first AGI
which is not inherently friendly will immediately make a few copies of
itself and then destroy all other intelligences capable of challenging
its apex position? Or will these slight differences arising from our
(only very slightly different) backgrounds be enough justification for
keeping us all around?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of George
Dvorsky
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:58 AM
To: sl4@sl4.org
Subject: Re: Genetically Modifying other Mammals to be as Smart as Us
[WAS Re: Syllabus for Seed Developer Qualifications]
Speculation about the potential differences between augmented humans and
non-human animals is moot. Uplifted intelligences, whether they are
descended from humans, animals, or rocks, will, in a Lamarckian process,
rapidly accelerate towards a common fitness peak. Post-biological
intelligences may retain vestiges of their pre-post-biological brain
(much like we still retain the reptilian part of our brain), but that
will ultimately be of no real consequence as all advanced intelligences
will gravitate towards roughly the same mode of cognitive being.
Cheers,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT